Christian unity seems to be more focused on Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism rather than Protestant Christians

[mgrfin]

Hello,

Considering that the Catholic Church trully wants reunification with the Orthodox Church…how about we go back before the schism where Rome was with its own business as Constantinople, Jerusalem etc, had their own business? I know the Catholics will say “well, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ” etc., but this is exactly what keeps us away from reunification.
So, maybe i’m thinking too superficially, but if we go back to Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria having equal “leadership”, East and West will be better off. Just my view on this.

Thanks,
Stefania

I don’t think so. Ask the Lutherans about their efforts at unification. The Vatican never budged one inch after 30 years after negotiations.

The Primacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the Pope of Rome is a defined doctrine of the faith. Rome will never give up that doctrine on behalf of unity.

There is no such thing as equal leadership. The Primacy of Peter is clear from the Gospels and the Magisterium of the Church.

If you want to talk about the date of Easter, and leavened/unleavened bread, and even the Filoque - maybe. But the Primacy of Peter? Not til the Second Coming.

peace

 

[Hesychios]

After spending some time reading posts in the old forum, I became convinced that the Catholic Church is going to have much more success with Protestants, particularly southern evangelicals, than it’s likely to have any time soon with the Orthodox. But again, it won’t be on an institutional basis, but an individual basis.

It’s important to realize, and most Catholics don’t realize it, that for many Protestants, the Eucharist is the answer to their prayers and dreams. I have had Protestants express to me how much they wished they could believe in it; that they would become Catholics instantly if they could do that. I think if the Church really emphasized promulgating the truth of the Eucharist among Protestants, in an organized and steady way, it would be worth a thousand Ravennas.

I agree with this.

The focus of the Roman Catholic church should be on recovering it’s relationship with it’s separated western brothers and sisters.

The comments about the Eucharist are interesting. It seems like the right approach.

 

[Hesychios]

So this can be done without submitting to Rome? The Pope is the vicar of Christ, there’s no way around it.

Have you not heard of open communion?

 

[Hesychios]

Thats not an honest argument though. The Divine Liturgy is fully alive in the Eastern rites.

I truly believe that true Orthodoxy can only be found in the Eastern Catholic Church.

No wonder their seems to be an identity crisis in Eastern Catholicism. If the Church recognizes Orthodoxy as being outside of the Church and in schism, then how are we to view those Easterners who are in communion? How are they to view themselves?

As a group destined to disappear into their mother churches.

Shouldn’t Rome boldly proclaim that the true expression of Eastern Orthodoxy is found in Eastern Catholicism?

That has already been tried…for hundreds of years.

A disaster. It only hardened the lines of division, driving the parties further apart.

Now, according to the Freising statement, reiterated in the Balamand agreement, the Church of Rome has rejected uniatism as a basis for church reconciliation.

There must be another approach.

Michael

 

[bobzills]

Now, according to the Freising statement, reiterated in the Balamand agreement, the Church of Rome has rejected uniatism as a basis for church reconciliation.

There must be another approach.

Michael

Yes.
What would be the other approach that would have any chance of success? I mean if you have a situation where Orthodox Christians are objecting to pious and prayerful Catholic devotions such as the rosary, the stations of the cross, First Friday devotions, the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, then I don’t see any chance of success.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes.
What would be the other approach that would have any chance of success? I mean if you have a situation where Orthodox Christians are objecting to pious and prayerful Catholic devotions such as the rosary, the stations of the cross, First Friday devotions, the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, then I don’t see any chance of success.

I doubt the Eastern Churches unit with Rome once again would be bound to these devotions. They would maintain their traditions and customs. Pope John Paul II explicited made it clear to Eastern Rite Catholics that they should maintain their traditional rites, and tradition, and remove any influence of latinization.

If Eastern Orthodoxy and the Holy See become in communion once again, I do believe they will maintain their ecclesial laws, jurisdiction, tradition, and would not be contaminated with latinization.

The Roman Rite would maintain their own practices of devotion. I don’t see the need for Rite become Easternized by their Eastern brothers and sisters. I do have to confessed, that I’m being easternized as well. I have grown to love the Eastern Catholics lately…

 

[bobzills]

I doubt the Eastern Churches unit with Rome once again would be bound to these devotions. They would maintain their traditions and customs. Pope John Paul II explicited made it clear to Eastern Rite Catholics that they should maintain their traditional rites, and tradition, and remove any influence of latinization. I think this would apply as well to the Eastern Orthodox units with Rome. I do believe the Eastern Orthodox will maintain their ecclesial laws and jurisdiction, when union becomes a reality.

Right. But I heard that some Orthodox Christians object to these prayerful and pious Catholic devotions as they are practiced in the Western Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Hesychios]

But the Primacy of Peter? Not til the Second Coming.

peace

Do not confuse primacy and supremacy…two different things.

Orthodox understand primacy, it is operative throughout the Orthodox church. Supremacy is something completely different actually, it negates primacy operating at all other levels.

In the RC, that has been defined as Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope. If you read that definition closely you will see that it is not about primacy at all.

The same can be said for papal infallibility. It makes no sense in a church without absolute supremacy of one individual. Everyone agrees that the church itself is infallible, but if you posit just one person responsible for everything that happens or can be done in the church, then infallibility in that one person makes some sort of sense.

But the early church never did function that way, and the EO and OO stand as witnesses to that, because they never formally changed anything about their own governance.

If (for example) there was a functional universal jurisdiction in the early church, the “separated” churches would have had a crises of sorts at the time of the schisms, and there would be aboundant historical evidence of changes in discipline adopted through canons. There is none, at all, anywhere.

In fact, the post schism changes that do show up in historical Christianity are all in the west, and the documentation of those changes is abundant. It is really hard to argue from a shifting historical position in the west that the east should be similarly governed. It is the papal system which has evolved, and continues to evolve.

It also happens to be that the western system is the one exhibiting the dysfunctionality we find showcased all over this CAF site, I do not need to recount them here. While Orthodox are interested in Christian unity, they are reluctant to get involved with a church manifesting so many real problems, most of which seem to be of a systemic origin.

Michael

 

[Mannyfit75]

Right. But I heard that some Orthodox Christians object to these prayerful and pious Catholic devotions as they are practiced in the Western Roman Catholic Church?

They do. Even the Pope respects that when Eastern Catholic Churches reunited with Rome. The Second Vatican Council stated that oriental churches ought to remove any form of latinization which has developed over time. I was reading 101 A&Q about Eastern Catholicism. I found that there had been attempts by the Latin Rite to latinized the Eastern Catholics, and this greatly upset the local Churches. In response, the Council in Second Vatican Council said that all influences of latinization must be remove, Oriental churches must return to their original traditions and practices. Pope John Paul II have made this very clear.

The issue of theology is also a matter. However, the author of the book states that Latin Church is influence byAristotelian philosphy. Thomas Aquinas is influence in this type of philopshy. The Eastern Catholics or Eastern Christian thinking differs. Instead of using the same terms to describe certain beliefs such as purgatory, original sin, and transubstantiation, the Eastern like to use the term, “expression of beliefs.” They similar to Latin’s theology but are expressed differently. The core faith remains the same.

Eastern Catholics can correct me if I misinterpret this view.

 

[Hesychios]

Yes.
What would be the other approach that would have any chance of success? I mean if you have a situation where Orthodox Christians are objecting to pious and prayerful Catholic devotions such as the rosary, the stations of the cross, First Friday devotions, the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, then I don’t see any chance of success.

Those are western matters, for the most part, they don’t have relevance in eastern theology. If they work their way into eastern churches it is a sympton of a problem.

The problem Orthodox have is that they do not want anything like that imposed upon them. Since this has happened in the past, it could happen again. The underlying concern is that this is evidence that eastern theology and spirituality has been undermined in eastern catholics, some of them have lost much of their own theological understanding, they think and act like Roman Catholics with a different liturgy.

I am sure most RC would view this as a good thing (thinking that these people have been “Catholicised”, as if the Latin way is the prototype for Catholic Christianity) but if they want unity with the Orthodox, they absolutely must take this concern of theirs more seriously and respectfully.

Most of the Latinized EC would not want their hybridness to be a negative, and attempt to portray it in the most positive light. They will cite that they are the middle way, or a bridge between east and west…that sort of thing. But they are living , breathing , walking advertisements for what could go wrong in a reunited church if the Orthodox yield to the newer-style western Papal ecclesiology.

And so, to the surprise of many, Eastern Catholics have become obstacles to Christian Unity…their own very existence is a serious…a very serious problem. Ideally they would be advertisements for the benefits and good things about being in communion with Rome, but no one among Orthodox wants to be like them. They and their Latin mindset and devotions have a huge negative impact on ecumenical dialogue.

It’s embarassing.

Michael

 

[Mannyfit75]

And so, to the surprise of many, Eastern Catholics have become obstacles to Christian Unity…their own very existence is a serious…a very serious problem. Ideally they would be advertisements for the benefits and good things about being in communion with Rome, but no one among Orthodox wants to be like them. They and their Latin mindset and devotions have a huge negative impact on ecumenical dialogue.

It’s embarassing.

Michael

Oddly enough, the Pope insist that those Eastern Catholics who had been latinized need to return to their traditions and practices that made the Eastern Catholics unique. Do you suppose not many Eastern Catholics aren’t aware of the Vatican Council document concerning the Oriental Churches?

 

[Hesychios]

Oddly enough, the Pope insist that those Eastern Catholics who had been latinized need to return to their traditions and practices that made the Eastern Catholics unique. Do you suppose not many Eastern Catholics aren’t aware of the Vatican Council document concerning the Oriental Churches?

Most eastern catholics stubbornly oppose change.

Their ancestors (great-great-grandparents, etc.) gave the church a devil of a time opposing many forms of latinization. Refusing to kneel for communion, that sort of thing.

But we are talking about the recent generations who know nothing but the twentieth century form of their church litugies, and the Baltimore catechism! Among the Nash I remember many who disparaged the Orthodox, and did not want to be like them!

Now that trend is slowly reversing in some parishes (not all by any means) as the young people are again in the vanguard of change, this time back to Orthodox theology and praxis. The key is to prepare the next generation. Usually this is under the influence of the catechists, with the approval of the priest. But if the priest is old fashioned, nothing of the sort will happen there.

Just my opinion here, but I think it has become something of a commonplace for factions within the Catholic church to bear up under unpleasant circumstances in the church, and wait for a future Pope who is sure to set things right. Some people are probably just hoping that the next one will reverse all this “false ecumanism” and give them their old (familiar) church back.

Since it might not happen, they will mutter and complain and drag their feet, becoming ever more marginalized, until they pass on to the next world and leave it to the children. Sort of like the generation of Israelites in the desert with Moses.

Many of these people are not happy about the changes coming in their parishes. I think the recent Popes are looking at a much bigger picture than they are.

Michael

 

[StevenFrancis]

I have a general impression that the Catholic Church seem to focus more on unity towards the Eastern Orthodox Church rather than the Protestant Christians.

The Joint Commision of Catholic-Orthodox Mission made a statement on recently concerning the talks in Ravenna, Itaty (Oct 8-14, 2007).

Any comment why this is so?

I’m not sure of the official reason, if there is one, but I kind of figure that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

The world changes in very small little pieces, and you start with the easiest pieces first. (Like when you’re building a jigsaw puzzle, you begin by building the border, then filling in all the other pieces).

Eastern Orthodox and Catholics are so close. There is not as much that seperates us, as with most of the Protestant world. I have heard some very encouraging things with the Anglican church and Catholic Church communicating as well. So there is some movement in Protestant circles. In the Protestant world, our closest brothers and sisters are the Anglicans and the Lutherans. I imagine it’ll start there.

Jesus is pleased that we are trying to unify his lambs. If we’re not complete by the time he returns, it won’t be for lack of trying. That would be truly tragic. To not even have tried.

Easiest and closest first. It’s the only way.

The peace of Christ be with you,

Steven

 

[Hesychios]

…And the Eastern Church says we are insensitive? To win acceptance, we have to allow them to chop us off at the knees, punch is in the gut, stab us through the heart, and club us to death.

A rather harsh comment, don’t you think? :ehh:

 

[Mannyfit75]

A rather harsh comment, don’t you think? :ehh:

I would think so too. I think he ought to pick better words.

 

[SolaFide]

I have a general impression that the Catholic Church seem to focus more on unity towards the Eastern Orthodox Church rather than the Protestant Christians

Because this is what would have to change for the evangelicals to move toward unity with Catholicism:

*The pope would have to resign and acknowledge that ONLY Christ is the head of the church (Colossians 1:18). The bishops would have to drop their claim to sole teaching authority, recognizing the Holy Spirit as the Church’s only infallible and authoritative teacher ( John 14:26, 16:13, 1 John 2:27).
*The Catholic priesthood would have to disband, confessing that the Sacrifice of the Mass in an insult to the finished work of Christ on the cross and that no one can forgive sins but God alone (Mark 2:7, Hebrews 10:18).
*Catholic altars would need to be torn down, confession booths removed, statues destroyed (Exod. 20:4). Veneration and prayer to Mary and the saints would have to stop (1 Timothy 2:5). The Church would have to confess that it has been preaching a false gospel, leading countless millions down the wide path that leads to destruction.
*It would have to acknowledge that baptism is not the instrument of justification, that sacraments cannot dispense the grace of God, that eternal life is not a merited reward, and that venial sins, acts of penance, purgatory and indulgences are all the inventions of men and the doctrines of demons.

Finally the church would have to proclaim that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ and forsaking the dependence on tradition, using only the Scriptures as it’s sole guide to the truth.

None of this is about to happen. If it did it would no longer be the Catholic Church it would be a Biblical church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Because this is what would have to change for the evangelicals to move toward unity with Catholicism:

*The pope would have to resign and acknowledge that ONLY Christ is the head of the church (Colossians 1:18).

The Church does teaches that Jesus is the Head of the Church. The Pope is the visible head, and Jesus is the invisible head. The Pope acts as an Ambassador of Christ.

Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

666 Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, precedes us into the Father’s glorious kingdom so that we, the members of his Body, may live in the hope of one day being with him for ever.

The bishops would have to drop their claim to sole teaching authority, recognizing the Holy Spirit as the Church’s only infallible and authoritative teacher ( John 14:26, 16:13, 1 John 2:27).

The Church does affirm that the Holy Spirit is the sole authority.

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

*The Catholic priesthood would have to disband, confessing that the Sacrifice of the Mass in an insult to the finished work of Christ on the cross and that no one can forgive sins but God alone (Mark 2:7, Hebrews 10:18).

Not going to happen. Without the priesthood. There would be no Mass. No Mass no Eucharist. The Sacrifice of the Mass is not a resacrifice. It’s the make presence the sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody manner. Christ sacrifice transcends time and space.

God does forgive sins but he also gave his Apostle to forgive the sins.

Jesus said, “Peace be with you. As the Father, has send me, so I send you.” He breathed on them. “Received the Holy Spirit. Whoever sin you forgiven them, they are forgiven, whosever sin you retain they are retain.”

This authority was handed down from the Jesus to his Apostles. The Apostles handed this down to their sucessors, the bishops and priests.

*Catholic altars would need to be torn down, confession booths removed, statues destroyed (Exod. 20:4). Veneration and prayer to Mary and the saints would have to stop (1 Timothy 2:5). The Church would have to confess that it has been preaching a false gospel, leading countless millions down the wide path that leads to destruction.

Not going to happen either. To this would insult Jesus Christ precepts.

*It would have to acknowledge that baptism is not the instrument of justification, that sacraments cannot dispense the grace of God, that eternal life is not a merited reward, and that venial sins, acts of penance, purgatory and indulgences are all the inventions of men and the doctrines of demons.

Baptism in essential for our salvation. Peter said, "Baptism saves you. Venial sins derives from John’s own word, “there is sin that is not deadly.” Purgatory is in noted in the Bible but not in word. In Philippians Jesus’ name is praised in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. This under the earth is Purgatory.

Finally the church would have to proclaim that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ and forsaking the dependence on tradition, using only the Scriptures as it’s sole guide to the truth.

The Church does believe salvation is through God’s grace. The Church does not adhere to a man-made doctrine of faith alone.

None of this is about to happen. If it did it would no longer be the Catholic Church it would be a Biblical church.

The Catholic Church is the only Biblical Church. It’s the fullness of faith and truth because she is the pillar and bulwark of truth. In fact, the Catholic Church is the original Church of Jesus Christ. The truth Church of Christ bears four marks.

It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

[mgrfin]

I agree with this.

The focus of the Roman Catholic church should be on recovering it’s relationship with it’s separated western brothers and sisters.

The comments about the Eucharist are interesting. It seems like the right approach.

Yes, I agree. When the Eastern Orthodox removes its excommunication of the Pope, and stops accusing us of heresy, and builds on mutual respect, we have a change of reunification.

Our better efforts, as you say, are with the West.

peace

 

[Metaron]

Because this is what would have to change for the evangelicals to move toward unity with Catholicism:

*The pope would have to resign and acknowledge that ONLY Christ is the head of the church (Colossians 1:18). The bishops would have to drop their claim to sole teaching authority, recognizing the Holy Spirit as the Church’s only infallible and authoritative teacher ( John 14:26, 16:13, 1 John 2:27).

The Catholic Church does say that the Holy Spirit is the only infallible teacher. In Protestantism, there is no definitive truth, because everyone uses their own interpretation, and all disagree. Protestantism has no absolutes. Christ promised that the Church would be led into all truth by the Spirit, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it; this is only possible if the Church was kept infallible, otherwise Jesus’ promise will have been a lie.

*The Catholic priesthood would have to disband, confessing that the Sacrifice of the Mass in an insult to the finished work of Christ on the cross and that no one can forgive sins but God alone (Mark 2:7, Hebrews 10:18).

The Sacrifice of the Mass is not an insult to the finished work of Christ, because it is not a repetition or additional sacrifice to the crucifixion. It is a “making present again” of the One Eternal Sacrifice. To disband the priesthood would be an abondoning of Truth, and would make the sacraments useless.

*Catholic altars would need to be torn down, confession booths removed, statues destroyed (Exod. 20:4). Veneration and prayer to Mary and the saints would have to stop (1 Timothy 2:5). The Church would have to confess that it has been preaching a false gospel, leading countless millions down the wide path that leads to destruction.

Tearing down altars would be sacrilege against God Almighty; the altars were dedicated to Him. Confessionals exist to accomodate the Sacrament of Penance (John 20:23, among other places.) As for the statues, I don’t remember the Jews tearing down the Cherubim, the Golden Oxen, the altar, and the Ark of the covenant from the temple. To do so would be sacrilige. And lastly, the Church, founded on the Apostles and Christ Himself, has never preached a false gospel. It, in fact, is the only Church to preach the Gospel in its entirity.

*It would have to acknowledge that baptism is not the instrument of justification, that sacraments cannot dispense the grace of God, that eternal life is not a merited reward, and that venial sins, acts of penance, purgatory and indulgences are all the inventions of men and the doctrines of demons.

Baptism is the means of regeneration (“One must be born of water and of the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of God…” and Jesus’ words: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved…” and St.Paul, “Baptism… now saves you.”) Sacraments do dispense the grace of God, as Jesus was Grace in the flesh and possessed a physical Body.
The Catholic Church does not teach that one can merit Heaven on his own; the Bible states that some sins are “sins unto death” i.e., mortal sins, and therefore makes a distiction between two types of sin. Acts of penence are throughout the Bible, and are too numerous to be mentioned here, Purgatory is well-founded and logical, as Evangelical believe in a similar event called “glorification”-- except they say it’s instantaneous. And indulgences go hand-in-hand with penance, and are found in the Bible also. They are the doctrines of Christ’s Church on earth.

*Finally the church would have to proclaim that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ and forsaking the dependence on tradition, using only the Scriptures as it’s sole guide to truth.

Salvation is by grace alone, from God. Active faith, proven by good works and true repentance, is nesessary for salvation. A lot of people have faith alone-- Such as my friend who is lives with his girlfriend-- but active faith, dynamic faith proven by good works (Read the Epistle of James, which, by the way, Luther wanted to remove from the Bible along with Revelation). Prove to me that Oral Tradition (Found in the Bible) is not on par with Written Tradition (The Scriptures). Without them, you have no canon, no Trinity, no proper understanding of the Incarnation, and no creed.

 

[peary]

But if the ordinations are rejected, then how are those sacraments given by the ordained valid (i.e. baptism and marriage). This doesn’t make sense…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

**Yes it does because, technically, any believer, in dire circumstances, CAN baptize. That means you or me. Marriage is a sacrament that the couple basically bestows upon themselves with a minister or priest as witness before God.

But the Anglican church disrupted the apostolic continuity of succession. During the time after Henry VIII, people like Cromwell were basically in control and many were put to death, even for mentioning the ‘Roman’ church in any way, shape or form.**